Maravi

Saturday, November 17, 2012

COMMENT - Former South African president Thabo Mbeki addresses and salutes land reform, cautions the Kimberley Diamond Certification Process, and insists on national sovereignty over natural resources. Or as the internatinol media spins it, "Diamond Conference Ends With Questions" or "Diamond Conference Ends With Questions Than Answers".

Mbeki speech at Zimbabwe diamond conference
on November 15, 2012 at 7:45 pm

The following is an address by former South African President Thabo Mbeki at the Zimbabwe Diamond Conference, Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe: November 12, 2012: Mbeki called for stricter measures to combat corruption in the mining and trade of diamonds in Zimbabwe.
By Thabo Mbeki

Director of Ceremonies,
Our host, Minister Obert Mpofu,
Honourable Ministers from Zimbabwe and our region,
Leaders of the Kimberley Process,
Your Excellencies, Ambassadors, High Commissioners and members of the Diplomatic Corps,

Distinguished delegates,

Ladies and gentlemen:

One of the occasions I was here at Victoria Falls was in April 2000. I came here as part of a SADC delegation constituted of then Presidents Joaquim Chissano of Moçambique, Sam Nujoma of Namibia, and myself, as President of South Africa.

We came here to engage President Robert Mugabe specifically about what was happening in this country at the time, relating to the occupation of white-owned farms by this country’s liberation war veterans, intended to address the historic Zimbabwe land question.

Specifically we discussed with the President how best to assist the sister people of Zimbabwe in the noble quest to correct an historical injustice. At the same time, our region fully accepted that land redistribution had to happen in Zimbabwe, as in other countries of our region.

After the meeting here, I had to report to the South African Parliament about the outcomes of that meeting. Here is part of what I reported to the South African National Assembly and therefore the people of South Africa as a whole:

“To address both the fundamental and central land question, which has to be solved, and the consequences that have derived from the failure to find this solution, we have been in contact with both the Zimbabwe and the British Governments. This contact sought to achieve a number of objectives. These are:

“1: to get a common commitment to solve the Zimbabwe land question, according to the framework and programme agreed at the 1998 Conference and thus, simultaneously, to speak to such questions as the rule of law;

“2: to end the violence that has attended the effort to find this solution;

“3: to create the conditions for the withdrawal from the farms they have occupied of the demonstrating war veterans; and,

“4: to pursue these issues in a manner that would be beneficial for all the people of Zimbabwe and the rest of Southern Africa. As we informed the media at Victoria Falls on Good Friday and other occasions since then, President Mugabe fully supported these objectives.”

The truth is that we failed to achieve the global outcome we sought. This was because we did not get the funding commitments to the programme that were agreed at the 1998 International Conference on the Zimbabwe Land Question.

This meant that we failed to convince the world powers to honour the solemn commitments they had made, including their funding of the Zimbabwe land reform, and therefore the related creation of the conditions to end the occupation of the white-owned farms.

With regard to everything I have said, I must report that, at that time, the view of the political leadership in our region was that it was still nevertheless correct and vital that Zimbabwe had to address the land question.

This was particularly so given the fact that from 1990, a decade earlier, Zimbabwe had delayed dealing with the land question in a new way, especially after the expiry of the restrictive land provisions in the independence Lancaster House Constitution.

As an outstanding act of African solidarity, the Government of Zimbabwe decided on this delay expressly to facilitate the then on-going negotiations in South Africa, from 1990 onwards, concerned that nothing should be done in Zimbabwe which would so frighten the white South African population that it would oppose our own country’s transformation.

With regard to the land question, the prevalent view in the rest of our region, outside Zimbabwe, which we, the SADC delegation that came to Vic Falls in 2000 represented, was that given the balance of power in Africa and the rest of the world, it was strategically and tactically ill-advised to resort to revolutionary methods to address the challenge of agrarian reform in this country.

We were convinced and argued this with President Mugabe, that, rather, Zimbabwe should indeed confront the matter of the land question, but address it through a process of reform rather than through revolutionary means.

We understood very well that the process of the reform rather than the revolutionary transformation of the inherited colonial system of land ownership, meant that the Zimbabwe Government and people would have to respect the principle of market based compensation of land owners for improvements on the farms they would have to forfeit.

[How is that working out in South Africa? Not very well, is it? - MrK]

SADC took the position it adopted in part because its leadership was convinced that the regional, continental and global progressive movement did not have the strength to overcome the determined Western opposition immediately to end the unjust colonial system of land ownership in Zimbabwe and our region.

In this context we had also come to understand very well that the West had absolutely no intention to provide the funds it promised solemnly, in 1979 in London and in 1998 in Harare, to compensate the white farmers for the land they would lose.

Whatever we might have honestly communicated to Africa and the rest of the world at the end of the April 2000 Vic Falls meeting between a SADC Presidential delegation and President Mugabe, the historical record is that the sister people of Zimbabwe succeeded to carry out a process of agrarian transformation which has fundamentally corrected an historic injustice relating to the land question in this country.

In this context I am happy to mention the united position taken by the democratically elected Zimbabwe political parties on the land question, in terms of which they said in the GPA that:

“(they accept) the inevitability and desirability of a comprehensive land reform programme in Zimbabwe that redresses the issues of historical imbalances and injustices in order to address the issues of equity, productivity, and justice.” [GPA: Article 5.3.]

Directly relevant to all this, I would also like to highlight the 2010 seminal book, “Zimbabwe’s Land Reform: Myths and Realities”, written by a British academic, Ian Scoones, and his Zimbabwe colleagues, Nelson Marongwe, Blasio Mavedzenge, Felix Murimbarimba, Jacob Mahenehene and Chrispen Sukume.

In essence this well-researched treatise, based on a detailed scientific assessment of the Zimbabwe land transformation process over at least 10 years, makes two important statements.

One of these is that the Agrarian Revolution in this country has succeeded to transfer the land to the people.

The second is that the new system of land ownership, favouring the peasantry, has demonstrated its capacity successfully to address the issues of food security and the provision of the agriculture raw materials required by the manufacturing sector.

An academic review of the Scoones book said the book challenged “five myths (about Zimbabwe’s Land Reform) through a detailed examination of field data:

The same review says Professor Bill Kinsey of the Free University of Amsterdam recommended to the readers of the book: “Whatever you thought about the land issue in Zimbabwe, be prepared to change your mind.”

[This also solidly refutes the version of events (elite capture) pushed in Mugabe And The White African. - MrK]

As the Zimbabwe Agrarian Revolution ran its course, our task as the political leadership of our region focused especially on our obligation to defend the right of the people of Zimbabwe to decide what they should do to resolve the land question, and therefore, and inevitably, to defend their fundamental right to self-determination.

Attached to this was the hope of our region that a successful Agrarian Revolution in Zimbabwe would also address the imperatives of the economic recovery of the country, poverty reduction and food security.

This arose because of both our concern for the welfare of the sister people of this country and our knowledge of the level of regional integration, as a result of which our countries could not isolate themselves from important developments in this country, vice versa.

In this regard, I must make the point that Ian Scoones and his colleagues, and other objective observers, such as the African Institute for Agrarian Studies, have made the correct and important observation that further to build on what has been achieved in this country in terms of successfully transferring ‘land to those who work it’, a serious effort must be made to support the new farmers with all-round assistance.

This would include upgrading the rural infrastructure, intensifying agricultural extension services, and providing the necessary credit to enable the new farmers to access the equipment, fertiliser, and other inputs, as well as the market access they need.

Of course, this must also include addressing the corrupt practice which occurred during the necessarily enormous upheaval of the Agrarian Revolution, which led the Government of Zimbabwe to take the important decision to conduct a land audit to ensure that those who had corruptly acquired land are not allowed to benefit from such corrupt practice.

In this regard, the September 2008 Global Political Agreement (GPA), elaborated and adopted by the Zimbabwe Political Parties, states that the Parties agreed:

Certainly the delegates present here from Zimbabwe and the rest of Southern Africa will recall vividly that essentially because of the Zimbabwe Agrarian Revolution, and as we feared when we met here with President Mugabe in April 2000, a veritable global and sustained political firestorm broke out, seeking to incinerate the Government of Zimbabwe as well as those of us who were seen as defenders of that Agrarian Revolution.

Accordingly, for many years now, various important political players in the world, as well as significant sections of the global media, have presented Zimbabwe as a ‘rogue state’ within our region, and in Africa as a whole.

This narrative was advanced to place on the global political agenda the fundamental proposition that because Zimbabwe was such a ‘rogue state’, it was perfectly legitimate to use all means, including through decisions of the UN Security Council, to overthrow the Government of Zimbabwe, thus to effect the necessary ‘regime change’ in this country.

It was perfectly clear to the political leadership in this Southern Region of Africa, and indeed the masses of the people in all our countries, that the determination by some from elsewhere in the world to effect this ‘regime change’ in Zimbabwe had to do with fundamentally undermining and weakening the historically and strategically important right of the peoples of Africa to self-determination.

In this regard, and contrary to the canards propagated by others from elsewhere in the world, certainly our Zimbabwe colleagues will recall that while it opposed such ‘regime change’, our region was deeply concerned about the then situation relating to democratic practice in this country, as stated in various SADC decisions.

For this reason, our region welcomed the commitment entered into by the Zimbabwe political parties in the GPA, according to which, for instance, they said:

“Recognising that the right to canvass and freely mobilise for political support is the cornerstone of any multi-party democratic system, the Parties have agreed that there should be free political activity throughout Zimbabwe within the ambit of the law in which all political parties are able to propagate their views and canvass for support, free of harassment and intimidation.” [GPA: Article 10].

Taking into account the fact that Zimbabwe will have to hold its next General Election next year, I would like to believe that the Zimbabwe political parties will honour this agreement and that our region, represented by SADC, will help the sister people of Zimbabwe in this regard.

We have convened here to discuss matters that relate to diamonds.

I can therefore imagine that some among us here tonight would have wondered why I have spent so much time talking about other matters, including the politics of our region of even more than a decade ago, without so much as a casual mention of the word – diamonds!

I must therefore explain that I have spoken as I have because we are meeting at the Zimbabwe Diamond Conference and not any other Diamond Conference.

As I am certain we all know, in the very short years since Zimbabwe started mining and exporting diamonds, this has generated much international debate that I believe has been unjustifiably hostile to Zimbabwe, and which has sought to use the Kimberley Process incorrectly to classify the Zimbabwe diamonds as ‘blood diamonds’, which should therefore not be traded internationally.

In this regard I must confess that since towards the end of 2008, because of other obligations towards our Continent, I have not had the opportunity to pay much attention to various matters relating to Zimbabwe, including the Kimberley Process as it bears on this country.

Last year, on April 13, I was privileged to address the Presidents Meeting of the World Federation of Diamond Bourses held in Dubai.

I beg your indulgence to quote what I said then, eighteen (18) months ago, which I believe remains relevant to this day. I said then that:

“I am certain that a positive response to Africa’s call focused on helping to create the African lions of which (the 2010 McKinsey Report) spoke, through adding value to its raw diamonds, would both benefit the diamond industry as a whole and reinforce the growth and development of the global economy.

“I am equally certain that everybody concerned should take seriously Africa’s views about the resolution of the current standoff in the Kimberley Process, centred on the issue of Zimbabwe diamonds.

“One of the critical points to bear in mind in this regard is the fact that the core objective of the Kimberley Process, to end the practice of the use of illegally mined diamonds to fund and prolong deadly wars, was of primary concern to us as Africans, first and foremost.

“Africa’s determination in this regard has not diminished. I am therefore certain that Africa, including the African Diamond Producers Association, would not support or advocate the production and sale of diamonds, especially African diamonds, contrary to the spirit and purposes of the Kimberley Process.

“In this regard I am certain that it will not help anybody, including you, the distinguished participants at this Presidents Meeting, that the Kimberley Process is politicised, to advance objectives other than those originally agreed at the Diamond Capital of South Africa, Kimberley, which gave its name to the Kimberley Process.

“In this regard I believe that all of us should take on board the weighty observation made by the Chairperson of the Kimberley Process, Minister Lapfa Lambang Mathieu Yamba, in his Notice of March 19, that, ‘the cessation of exports in the KPCS must be subjected to a more credible mechanism which includes verification of allegations and due process.’

“I believe that it was exactly to ensure such verification of allegations as well as due process that a high-level delegation of the African Diamond Producers Association visited the Zimbabwe diamond fields earlier this month, led by the South African Minister of Mines and Mineral Resources, Hon Susan Shabangu…

“I sincerely hope that the current dispute affecting this Process will be resolved soon to avoid its breakdown, an eventuality which I am convinced nobody would desire.”

Eight months later, after I made these remarks in Dubai, and earlier this year, I was pleased to see media reports of important statements made by the esteemed current Chairperson of the Kimberley Process, the KPCS, Ambassador Gillian Milovanovic, on February 3, 2012.

I refer here to what it was reported she said, that:

“The (Kimberley) process went through great difficulty determining how to deal with the question of diamond exports from Zimbabwe, given violence and other matters. And this showed that there was a need to look at systems, to look at definitions, to look at ways to ensure that the lessons were drawn, and that the organisation could determine best ways to become more efficient and to remain relevant. That would include the definition of conflict diamonds…

“But at the present time, I am told, the only country whose diamonds are fitting within the definition of conflict diamonds is diamonds from Côte d’Ivoire. And that represents, overall, far less than 1 percent of all diamonds.”

As I understand it, perhaps wrongly, those of us who are members of the Kimberley Process are engaged exactly in the processes to which Chairperson Milovanovic referred when she spoke about “a need to look at systems, to look at definitions, to look at ways to ensure that the lessons were drawn, and that the organisation could determine best ways to become more efficient and to remain relevant.”

In this regard, I am certain that all of us understand and respect the fundamental practice in jurisprudence that consistent with the principle of the rule of law, all law of general application, like the prescriptions of the Kimberley Process, should not be written to target particular persons or entities.

I say this because as Africans, we would surely agree that we should “look at the Kimberley Process systems…and definitions”, as urged by Chairperson Milovanovic.

At the same time, in this regard, I am certain that as Africans we should do everything possible to ensure that the Kimberly Process is insulated from any political abuse, and is therefore used to establish an equitable global assessment system consistent with the agreed goals of the Kimberley Process.

I am certain that among others, we will work hard to ensure that the Kimberley Process is not misused to compromise the right of Africa as a whole, a major diamond producer, to the fundamental and inalienable right to self-determination, and the right to development.

In this context, I must also emphasise that as Africans we must remain especially vigilant that the export of African diamonds does not open or widen yet another window to the immensely pernicious illicit outflows of capital from Africa.

I trust that all of us at this important Zimbabwe Diamond Conference, will understand what I have just said, with regard to both Zimbabwe and Africa as a whole, about the absolute imperative we all share to end the illicit export of capital from our continent – the sustained illegal and ‘legal’ transfer of capital from the African poor to the rich West, which have been a critical and central contributor to the underdevelopment of our continent, and therefore the criminal impoverishment of the African masses.

I hope that you now understand why, earlier, I spoke to you about other matters not related to diamonds, such as this country’s tumultuous Agrarian Revolution.

All of us know that all manner of negative allegations have been made about diamond mining in Zimbabwe, no different in essence from the global political offensive which sought to oppose and defeat this country’s Agrarian Revolution.

Basing myself on my experience, I would like to exploit the privilege I have been given by Honourable Minister Dr Obert Moses Mpofu, the Zimbabwe Minister of Mines and Mining Development, to say a few additional things as I speak at this conference.

The first of these is that I am absolutely certain that the masses of our people throughout the entirety of our region of Southern Africa, the neighbours of Zimbabwe, are indeed very happy that the sister people of this country, have found yet another natural resource which can and should be used to ensure that our sister people achieve the sacred goal of a better life for themselves.

In this regard, we really hope that this natural resource, Zimbabwe’s diamond deposits, will be used genuinely to benefit the masses of the ordinary people.

This must also mean that this country’s political leadership, including all the parties which serve in the current Inclusive Government established because of the GPA, must absolutely ensure that the diamond mining industry is not governed by a predatory elite which uses its access to state power to enrich itself, against the interests of the people as a whole, acting in collusion with the mining companies.

[I would say the mining companies themselves are the predatory elite. - MrK]

Accordingly, the Government of Zimbabwe must surely do everything possible to ensure the greatest possible transparency about all matters relating to the mining and marketing of diamonds, and the management and use of the resultant financial resources, precisely because the Government would have nothing to hide.

In this context, the Government would obviously have to put in place very strict measures to combat any corruption that might arise, related to the diamond industry.

I have said all this because I have no doubt that there will be people both from Zimbabwe and elsewhere in the world who will see the opportunity of the exploitation of Zimbabwe’s diamond resources as, for them, a happy occasion for self-enrichment by corrupt means.

In all humility, I would also say that the Government of Zimbabwe must put in place a progressive and long-term policy about the management of this important natural resource heritage, as it has done with regard to land, in this case relating to this country’s diamonds.

This must mean sustained national access to the financial revenues deriving from the exploitation of this resource, and the use of these revenues to finance the necessary sustainable development, bearing in mind that what is mined, including diamonds, is not a renewable resource.

I know that Zimbabwe, like much of our region, is rich in natural resources, in addition to the land and the diamond resources we have spoken of this evening.

I have absolutely no doubt that Zimbabwe will evolve into one of the African Lions of which other objective observers have spoken, which will ensure that the people of this country achieve the objective we all seek of achieving the objective of a sustained and comprehensive better life.

Of critical importance in this context, will be how you, our Zimbabwe friends, present here today, handle your management of your natural resources, including land, diamonds, platinum, chrome, copper, coal, gold, and others of this country’s many natural resources.

For many years now, our region, through SADC, has called for the lifting of sanctions against Zimbabwe, which regrettably has not happened.

Our region made this call not to advantage the ruling party in Zimbabwe, but to improve the socio-economic situation in Zimbabwe, in favour of the people as a whole.

We acted as we did as the people in place who had intimate knowledge of the situation in our countries and our neighbourhood. In this regard we were very happy that earlier this year, the UN Commissioner for Human Rights, Judge Navi Pillay, also called for the lifting of these sanctions.

The public position which many took relating to what UN Commissioner Navi Pillay said about Zimbabwe confirmed to us as Africans, to our regret, that the issue of human rights in international politics, certainly as it relates to us, is little more than an instrument in a global political struggle weighted to undermine the assertion of our right to self determination.

In this regard, as I did in Dubai last year, I would appeal to you as members of the Kimberley Process, not to allow the important Kimberley Process, in whose success our Continent is genuinely interested, to be abused by anybody whatsoever, for political purposes, among others to achieve the objective of ‘regime change’ in Zimbabwe.

In this regard I have no doubt that Africa, as a major producer and exporter of diamonds, will participate actively and willingly in any process to improve the functioning and other elements of the Kimberley Process, as I have said.

However, Africa and Southern Africa as a whole share the hope for the speedy economic and political recovery of Zimbabwe.

Together, as a billion Africans, we believe that the Zimbabwe diamonds will help to achieve these important objectives which would benefit our Continent as whole.

Both the Zimbabwe political leadership and the world political powers owe a sacred obligation to the peoples of Zimbabwe and Africa to ensure that this country’s diamonds serve as the people’s best friend!

I sincerely hope that all of us gathered here at this World Heritage Site, Musi oa Thunya, will take the decisions we must, which will enable the peoples of Zimbabwe and Africa to acquire the benefit of the heritage of a better life, and thus defeat all ill-intentioned attempts to inject into the Kimberley Process objectives inimical to its original and noble purposes.

As Africans we can have no objection to the goal that Africa must succeed.

As these Africans, including as Zimbabweans, we cannot have any other objective than that Zimbabwe re-establishes herself as one of Africa’s preeminent pioneer counties.

You, Zimbabweans who are with us today, have an obligation to live up to this task, and therefore to honour what Africa has done to help guarantee your own right to self- determination, in Africa’s own interest.

Whatever your faults which as Africans we share with you, nevertheless we demand of you that you must, at all times, act in a manner that upholds and demonstrates our character as true and noble Africans.

Thank you.

To help maintain editorial independence Nehanda Radio relies on donations from readers like you. No donation is too small or too big. Help by donating to fund our operations.

THE international diamond conference underway at Victoria Falls was rocked by controversy Tuesday over the Kimberley Process, the world diamond trade regulatory body, whose chairwoman was publicly asked to resign because she is American.

Gillian Milovanovic, the American chairwoman of the Kimberley Process, came under a barrage of criticism from African delegates at the conference for allegedly not doing enough to persuade the U.S. government to lift trade restrictions on Zimbabwe’s state-owned diamond mining companies.
South Africa’s Kimberley Process monitor Abbey Chikane accused Milovanovic of having a conflict of interest because she is American.

Chikane alleged Milovanovic has failed to follow African delegates wishes to promote the trade of diamonds dug up from Zimbabwe’s notorious Marange field in Europe and the United States.

The state-run Zimbabwe Mining Development Company and Minerals Marketing Corporation of Zimbabwe are on the U.S. sanctions list, because of evidence of the Mugabe government’s state violence and human rights violations.

“There is a danger of having a chairmanship that will fragment the organization because you are conflicted ... you are then supposed to recuse yourself,” Chikane said to Milovanovic in front of the conference.

“When South Africa takes over the chair next year we will solve these issues,” said Chikane, who is chairman of the South African Diamond Board.

Zimbabwe Mines Minister Obert Mpofu told Milovanovic that most traders and investors at the conference, mostly of Indian and Arab origin, were “scared” of her presence at the conference, which was sponsored by President Robert Mugabe’s government.

“They are coming to me whispering, scared that they will be heard by the Americans who will interfere with their accounts,” Mpofu said.

“But it will not stop us from what we are doing,” he said, referring to Zimbabwe’s diamond trade with India and Dubai, which has been criticized for alleged corruption through price fixing.

Other delegates from Africa, India, Israel and Dubai told Milovanovic that because of U.S sanctions against Zimbabwe, the Kimberley Process is unwittingly promoting the illicit trade of Zimbabwe diamonds and creating the same conflict diamonds it is trying to prevent from being traded.

Milovanovic told the delegates that she would not respond to their criticism.

“You are looking for something very dramatic from all this but you are not going to get it,” she said. “I’m not a dramatic person by nature.”

Milovanovic said her position on the Kimberley Process had no power to influence the U.S. imposition of sanctions against Zimbabwe.

The U.S Embassy said U.S. sanctions against Zimbabwe’s state-owned mining companies are separate from the Kimberley Process.

Michael Gonzalez, the political and economic officer at the embassy in Harare, said the American sanctions against Zimbabwe’s mining companies have nothing to do with the Kimberley Process but are a bilateral issue. He said Washington has imposed sanctions because of its concerns over state violence.

Zimbabwe’s “attorney general and security chiefs must start honoring the president’s calls to end violence so the sanctions can be removed,” said Gonzalez.

Mugabe’s government staged the conference in the resort city of Victoria Falls to gain international credibility for Zimbabwe’s huge production of diamonds in the Marange fields in eastern Zimbabwe.

But the Mugabe government’s efforts to win respectability have been overshadowed by allegations that $2 billion of diamond proceeds have been stolen by Mugabe’s cronies. Zimbabwe government officials denied the charges of corruption in the report by the Partnership Africa Canada, a group campaigning against conflict diamonds.

Since 2006, Zimbabwe has mined Marange - one of the world’s largest diamond deposits - producing rough stones worth an estimated $2 billion per year.

Yet the report charges that the funds have not reached the Zimbabwean treasury to help the impoverished country. Instead the diamonds have enriched Mugabe’s close associates and an international ring of traders, according to the report.

" "It was perfectly clear to the political leadership in this Southern Region of Africa, and indeed the masses of the people in all our countries, that the determination by some from elsewhere in the world to effect this ‘regime change’ in Zimbabwe had to do with fundamentally undermining and weakening the historically and strategically important right of the peoples of Africa to self-determination," he said. "

West blocking diamond sales: Mugabe
12/11/2012 00:00:00
by Business Reporter

ZIMBABWE is being forced to sell diamonds from Marange in the eastern Manicaland province at sub-market prices because of sanctions imposed by the West, President Robert Mugabe said Monday.
Addressing an international diamond conference at the Victoria Falls resort which was also attended by former South Africa President Thabo Mbeki, Mugabe said: “The diamonds have been marketed at depressed prices owing to a negative buyers’ perception resulting from these illegal sanctions.

“In this regard, may I urge the diamond industry players to call for fair play in the marketing of our diamonds from Marange.”

Western countries imposed sanctions against Zimbabwe more than a decade ago, accusing Mugabe’s government of rights abuses and electoral abuse - allegations denied by the Zanu PF leader.

Although political tensions have since eased following the establishment in 2009 of a power-sharing government between Mugabe and long-term rival, Morgan Tsvangirai, now Prime Minister, a campaign to have the sanctions removed has met with little success.

Chaim Even-Zohar, president of an Israeli diamond consultancy told the conference that Zimbabwe was selling its diamonds at rock-bottom prices as most foreign buyers were scared of falling foul of a US ban against trading in Marange diamonds.

Even-Zohar said "major companies are scared, (and) insurance companies are afraid" of the US Office of Foreign Assets Control, forcing the country to dispose of its gems at 25 per cent less than their full value.

Rights groups have also continued a campaign to have the Marange stones classified as tainted despite the country complying with the requirements of industry watchdog, the Kimberly Process.

On Monday a Canadian group released a report to coincide with the conference claiming that at least $2 billion worth of diamonds had been stolen from the Marange fields with most of the money allegedly enriching President Mugabe's ruling circle.

Marange has seen "the biggest plunder of diamonds since Cecil Rhodes," the colonial magnate who exploited South Africa's Kimberley diamonds a century ago, charged Partnership Africa Canada (PAC), a member of the Kimberley Process, the world regulatory body on the diamond trade.

"Marange's potential has been overshadowed by violence, smuggling, corruption and most of all, lost opportunity," the PAC report said.

"The scale of illegality is mind-blowing," and has spread to "compromise most of the diamond markets of the world," said the report.

The allegations were however dismissed as “totally false” by Goodwills Masimirembwa, chief of Zimbabwe Mining Development Company.

"No diamonds have ever gone missing. When we are selling our diamonds all stakeholders, the police, revenue board and the country's mineral marketing body come together,” said Masimirembwa.

"So are they saying all these institutions are in collusion? Instead, let them come up with specific allegations, then the police will investigate."

Meanwhile, Mugabe said the government would speed up formulation of policy and legislation such as the Diamond Policy and the Diamond Bill to address transparency concerns by the international community.

“Government remains steadfast in the promotion and maintenance of transparency and accountability, not only in the diamond sub-sector, but also in all other sectors,” he said.

“Given (our) commitment to upholding of international industry standards and requirements, it goes without saying that diamonds from Zimbabwe must, in the same spirit, be allowed market space in order to trade competitively and fully benefit the nation.”

Mugabe’s call was also backed by Mbeki who said sanctions imposed by the West had nothing to do with concerns for human rights and democracy.

"It was perfectly clear to the political leadership in this Southern Region of Africa, and indeed the masses of the people in all our countries, that the determination by some from elsewhere in the world to effect this ‘regime change’ in Zimbabwe had to do with fundamentally undermining and weakening the historically and strategically important right of the peoples of Africa to self-determination," he said.

COMMENT - Former South African president Thabo Mbeki addresses and salutes land reform, cautions the Kimberley Diamond Certification Process, and insists on national sovereignty over natural resources. Or as the internatinol media spins it, "Diamond Conference Ends With Questions" or "Diamond Conference Ends With Questions Than Answers".

Mbeki speech at Zimbabwe diamond conference
on November 15, 2012 at 7:45 pm

The following is an address by former South African President Thabo Mbeki at the Zimbabwe Diamond Conference, Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe: November 12, 2012: Mbeki called for stricter measures to combat corruption in the mining and trade of diamonds in Zimbabwe.
By Thabo Mbeki

Director of Ceremonies,
Our host, Minister Obert Mpofu,
Honourable Ministers from Zimbabwe and our region,
Leaders of the Kimberley Process,
Your Excellencies, Ambassadors, High Commissioners and members of the Diplomatic Corps,

Distinguished delegates,

Ladies and gentlemen:

One of the occasions I was here at Victoria Falls was in April 2000. I came here as part of a SADC delegation constituted of then Presidents Joaquim Chissano of Moçambique, Sam Nujoma of Namibia, and myself, as President of South Africa.

We came here to engage President Robert Mugabe specifically about what was happening in this country at the time, relating to the occupation of white-owned farms by this country’s liberation war veterans, intended to address the historic Zimbabwe land question.

Specifically we discussed with the President how best to assist the sister people of Zimbabwe in the noble quest to correct an historical injustice. At the same time, our region fully accepted that land redistribution had to happen in Zimbabwe, as in other countries of our region.

After the meeting here, I had to report to the South African Parliament about the outcomes of that meeting. Here is part of what I reported to the South African National Assembly and therefore the people of South Africa as a whole:

“To address both the fundamental and central land question, which has to be solved, and the consequences that have derived from the failure to find this solution, we have been in contact with both the Zimbabwe and the British Governments. This contact sought to achieve a number of objectives. These are:

“1: to get a common commitment to solve the Zimbabwe land question, according to the framework and programme agreed at the 1998 Conference and thus, simultaneously, to speak to such questions as the rule of law;

“2: to end the violence that has attended the effort to find this solution;

“3: to create the conditions for the withdrawal from the farms they have occupied of the demonstrating war veterans; and,

“4: to pursue these issues in a manner that would be beneficial for all the people of Zimbabwe and the rest of Southern Africa. As we informed the media at Victoria Falls on Good Friday and other occasions since then, President Mugabe fully supported these objectives.”

The truth is that we failed to achieve the global outcome we sought. This was because we did not get the funding commitments to the programme that were agreed at the 1998 International Conference on the Zimbabwe Land Question.

This meant that we failed to convince the world powers to honour the solemn commitments they had made, including their funding of the Zimbabwe land reform, and therefore the related creation of the conditions to end the occupation of the white-owned farms.

With regard to everything I have said, I must report that, at that time, the view of the political leadership in our region was that it was still nevertheless correct and vital that Zimbabwe had to address the land question.

This was particularly so given the fact that from 1990, a decade earlier, Zimbabwe had delayed dealing with the land question in a new way, especially after the expiry of the restrictive land provisions in the independence Lancaster House Constitution.

As an outstanding act of African solidarity, the Government of Zimbabwe decided on this delay expressly to facilitate the then on-going negotiations in South Africa, from 1990 onwards, concerned that nothing should be done in Zimbabwe which would so frighten the white South African population that it would oppose our own country’s transformation.

With regard to the land question, the prevalent view in the rest of our region, outside Zimbabwe, which we, the SADC delegation that came to Vic Falls in 2000 represented, was that given the balance of power in Africa and the rest of the world, it was strategically and tactically ill-advised to resort to revolutionary methods to address the challenge of agrarian reform in this country.

We were convinced and argued this with President Mugabe, that, rather, Zimbabwe should indeed confront the matter of the land question, but address it through a process of reform rather than through revolutionary means.

We understood very well that the process of the reform rather than the revolutionary transformation of the inherited colonial system of land ownership, meant that the Zimbabwe Government and people would have to respect the principle of market based compensation of land owners for improvements on the farms they would have to forfeit.

[How is that working out in South Africa? Not very well, is it? - MrK]

SADC took the position it adopted in part because its leadership was convinced that the regional, continental and global progressive movement did not have the strength to overcome the determined Western opposition immediately to end the unjust colonial system of land ownership in Zimbabwe and our region.

In this context we had also come to understand very well that the West had absolutely no intention to provide the funds it promised solemnly, in 1979 in London and in 1998 in Harare, to compensate the white farmers for the land they would lose.

Whatever we might have honestly communicated to Africa and the rest of the world at the end of the April 2000 Vic Falls meeting between a SADC Presidential delegation and President Mugabe, the historical record is that the sister people of Zimbabwe succeeded to carry out a process of agrarian transformation which has fundamentally corrected an historic injustice relating to the land question in this country.

In this context I am happy to mention the united position taken by the democratically elected Zimbabwe political parties on the land question, in terms of which they said in the GPA that:

“(they accept) the inevitability and desirability of a comprehensive land reform programme in Zimbabwe that redresses the issues of historical imbalances and injustices in order to address the issues of equity, productivity, and justice.” [GPA: Article 5.3.]

Directly relevant to all this, I would also like to highlight the 2010 seminal book, “Zimbabwe’s Land Reform: Myths and Realities”, written by a British academic, Ian Scoones, and his Zimbabwe colleagues, Nelson Marongwe, Blasio Mavedzenge, Felix Murimbarimba, Jacob Mahenehene and Chrispen Sukume.

In essence this well-researched treatise, based on a detailed scientific assessment of the Zimbabwe land transformation process over at least 10 years, makes two important statements.

One of these is that the Agrarian Revolution in this country has succeeded to transfer the land to the people.

The second is that the new system of land ownership, favouring the peasantry, has demonstrated its capacity successfully to address the issues of food security and the provision of the agriculture raw materials required by the manufacturing sector.

An academic review of the Scoones book said the book challenged “five myths (about Zimbabwe’s Land Reform) through a detailed examination of field data:

The same review says Professor Bill Kinsey of the Free University of Amsterdam recommended to the readers of the book: “Whatever you thought about the land issue in Zimbabwe, be prepared to change your mind.”

[This also solidly refutes the version of events (elite capture) pushed in Mugabe And The White African. - MrK]

As the Zimbabwe Agrarian Revolution ran its course, our task as the political leadership of our region focused especially on our obligation to defend the right of the people of Zimbabwe to decide what they should do to resolve the land question, and therefore, and inevitably, to defend their fundamental right to self-determination.

Attached to this was the hope of our region that a successful Agrarian Revolution in Zimbabwe would also address the imperatives of the economic recovery of the country, poverty reduction and food security.

This arose because of both our concern for the welfare of the sister people of this country and our knowledge of the level of regional integration, as a result of which our countries could not isolate themselves from important developments in this country, vice versa.

In this regard, I must make the point that Ian Scoones and his colleagues, and other objective observers, such as the African Institute for Agrarian Studies, have made the correct and important observation that further to build on what has been achieved in this country in terms of successfully transferring ‘land to those who work it’, a serious effort must be made to support the new farmers with all-round assistance.

This would include upgrading the rural infrastructure, intensifying agricultural extension services, and providing the necessary credit to enable the new farmers to access the equipment, fertiliser, and other inputs, as well as the market access they need.

Of course, this must also include addressing the corrupt practice which occurred during the necessarily enormous upheaval of the Agrarian Revolution, which led the Government of Zimbabwe to take the important decision to conduct a land audit to ensure that those who had corruptly acquired land are not allowed to benefit from such corrupt practice.

In this regard, the September 2008 Global Political Agreement (GPA), elaborated and adopted by the Zimbabwe Political Parties, states that the Parties agreed:

Certainly the delegates present here from Zimbabwe and the rest of Southern Africa will recall vividly that essentially because of the Zimbabwe Agrarian Revolution, and as we feared when we met here with President Mugabe in April 2000, a veritable global and sustained political firestorm broke out, seeking to incinerate the Government of Zimbabwe as well as those of us who were seen as defenders of that Agrarian Revolution.

Accordingly, for many years now, various important political players in the world, as well as significant sections of the global media, have presented Zimbabwe as a ‘rogue state’ within our region, and in Africa as a whole.

This narrative was advanced to place on the global political agenda the fundamental proposition that because Zimbabwe was such a ‘rogue state’, it was perfectly legitimate to use all means, including through decisions of the UN Security Council, to overthrow the Government of Zimbabwe, thus to effect the necessary ‘regime change’ in this country.

It was perfectly clear to the political leadership in this Southern Region of Africa, and indeed the masses of the people in all our countries, that the determination by some from elsewhere in the world to effect this ‘regime change’ in Zimbabwe had to do with fundamentally undermining and weakening the historically and strategically important right of the peoples of Africa to self-determination.

In this regard, and contrary to the canards propagated by others from elsewhere in the world, certainly our Zimbabwe colleagues will recall that while it opposed such ‘regime change’, our region was deeply concerned about the then situation relating to democratic practice in this country, as stated in various SADC decisions.

For this reason, our region welcomed the commitment entered into by the Zimbabwe political parties in the GPA, according to which, for instance, they said:

“Recognising that the right to canvass and freely mobilise for political support is the cornerstone of any multi-party democratic system, the Parties have agreed that there should be free political activity throughout Zimbabwe within the ambit of the law in which all political parties are able to propagate their views and canvass for support, free of harassment and intimidation.” [GPA: Article 10].

Taking into account the fact that Zimbabwe will have to hold its next General Election next year, I would like to believe that the Zimbabwe political parties will honour this agreement and that our region, represented by SADC, will help the sister people of Zimbabwe in this regard.

We have convened here to discuss matters that relate to diamonds.

I can therefore imagine that some among us here tonight would have wondered why I have spent so much time talking about other matters, including the politics of our region of even more than a decade ago, without so much as a casual mention of the word – diamonds!

I must therefore explain that I have spoken as I have because we are meeting at the Zimbabwe Diamond Conference and not any other Diamond Conference.

As I am certain we all know, in the very short years since Zimbabwe started mining and exporting diamonds, this has generated much international debate that I believe has been unjustifiably hostile to Zimbabwe, and which has sought to use the Kimberley Process incorrectly to classify the Zimbabwe diamonds as ‘blood diamonds’, which should therefore not be traded internationally.

In this regard I must confess that since towards the end of 2008, because of other obligations towards our Continent, I have not had the opportunity to pay much attention to various matters relating to Zimbabwe, including the Kimberley Process as it bears on this country.

Last year, on April 13, I was privileged to address the Presidents Meeting of the World Federation of Diamond Bourses held in Dubai.

I beg your indulgence to quote what I said then, eighteen (18) months ago, which I believe remains relevant to this day. I said then that:

“I am certain that a positive response to Africa’s call focused on helping to create the African lions of which (the 2010 McKinsey Report) spoke, through adding value to its raw diamonds, would both benefit the diamond industry as a whole and reinforce the growth and development of the global economy.

“I am equally certain that everybody concerned should take seriously Africa’s views about the resolution of the current standoff in the Kimberley Process, centred on the issue of Zimbabwe diamonds.

“One of the critical points to bear in mind in this regard is the fact that the core objective of the Kimberley Process, to end the practice of the use of illegally mined diamonds to fund and prolong deadly wars, was of primary concern to us as Africans, first and foremost.

“Africa’s determination in this regard has not diminished. I am therefore certain that Africa, including the African Diamond Producers Association, would not support or advocate the production and sale of diamonds, especially African diamonds, contrary to the spirit and purposes of the Kimberley Process.

“In this regard I am certain that it will not help anybody, including you, the distinguished participants at this Presidents Meeting, that the Kimberley Process is politicised, to advance objectives other than those originally agreed at the Diamond Capital of South Africa, Kimberley, which gave its name to the Kimberley Process.

“In this regard I believe that all of us should take on board the weighty observation made by the Chairperson of the Kimberley Process, Minister Lapfa Lambang Mathieu Yamba, in his Notice of March 19, that, ‘the cessation of exports in the KPCS must be subjected to a more credible mechanism which includes verification of allegations and due process.’

“I believe that it was exactly to ensure such verification of allegations as well as due process that a high-level delegation of the African Diamond Producers Association visited the Zimbabwe diamond fields earlier this month, led by the South African Minister of Mines and Mineral Resources, Hon Susan Shabangu…

“I sincerely hope that the current dispute affecting this Process will be resolved soon to avoid its breakdown, an eventuality which I am convinced nobody would desire.”

Eight months later, after I made these remarks in Dubai, and earlier this year, I was pleased to see media reports of important statements made by the esteemed current Chairperson of the Kimberley Process, the KPCS, Ambassador Gillian Milovanovic, on February 3, 2012.

I refer here to what it was reported she said, that:

“The (Kimberley) process went through great difficulty determining how to deal with the question of diamond exports from Zimbabwe, given violence and other matters. And this showed that there was a need to look at systems, to look at definitions, to look at ways to ensure that the lessons were drawn, and that the organisation could determine best ways to become more efficient and to remain relevant. That would include the definition of conflict diamonds…

“But at the present time, I am told, the only country whose diamonds are fitting within the definition of conflict diamonds is diamonds from Côte d’Ivoire. And that represents, overall, far less than 1 percent of all diamonds.”

As I understand it, perhaps wrongly, those of us who are members of the Kimberley Process are engaged exactly in the processes to which Chairperson Milovanovic referred when she spoke about “a need to look at systems, to look at definitions, to look at ways to ensure that the lessons were drawn, and that the organisation could determine best ways to become more efficient and to remain relevant.”

In this regard, I am certain that all of us understand and respect the fundamental practice in jurisprudence that consistent with the principle of the rule of law, all law of general application, like the prescriptions of the Kimberley Process, should not be written to target particular persons or entities.

I say this because as Africans, we would surely agree that we should “look at the Kimberley Process systems…and definitions”, as urged by Chairperson Milovanovic.

At the same time, in this regard, I am certain that as Africans we should do everything possible to ensure that the Kimberly Process is insulated from any political abuse, and is therefore used to establish an equitable global assessment system consistent with the agreed goals of the Kimberley Process.

I am certain that among others, we will work hard to ensure that the Kimberley Process is not misused to compromise the right of Africa as a whole, a major diamond producer, to the fundamental and inalienable right to self-determination, and the right to development.

In this context, I must also emphasise that as Africans we must remain especially vigilant that the export of African diamonds does not open or widen yet another window to the immensely pernicious illicit outflows of capital from Africa.

I trust that all of us at this important Zimbabwe Diamond Conference, will understand what I have just said, with regard to both Zimbabwe and Africa as a whole, about the absolute imperative we all share to end the illicit export of capital from our continent – the sustained illegal and ‘legal’ transfer of capital from the African poor to the rich West, which have been a critical and central contributor to the underdevelopment of our continent, and therefore the criminal impoverishment of the African masses.

I hope that you now understand why, earlier, I spoke to you about other matters not related to diamonds, such as this country’s tumultuous Agrarian Revolution.

All of us know that all manner of negative allegations have been made about diamond mining in Zimbabwe, no different in essence from the global political offensive which sought to oppose and defeat this country’s Agrarian Revolution.

Basing myself on my experience, I would like to exploit the privilege I have been given by Honourable Minister Dr Obert Moses Mpofu, the Zimbabwe Minister of Mines and Mining Development, to say a few additional things as I speak at this conference.

The first of these is that I am absolutely certain that the masses of our people throughout the entirety of our region of Southern Africa, the neighbours of Zimbabwe, are indeed very happy that the sister people of this country, have found yet another natural resource which can and should be used to ensure that our sister people achieve the sacred goal of a better life for themselves.

In this regard, we really hope that this natural resource, Zimbabwe’s diamond deposits, will be used genuinely to benefit the masses of the ordinary people.

This must also mean that this country’s political leadership, including all the parties which serve in the current Inclusive Government established because of the GPA, must absolutely ensure that the diamond mining industry is not governed by a predatory elite which uses its access to state power to enrich itself, against the interests of the people as a whole, acting in collusion with the mining companies.

[I would say the mining companies themselves are the predatory elite. - MrK]

Accordingly, the Government of Zimbabwe must surely do everything possible to ensure the greatest possible transparency about all matters relating to the mining and marketing of diamonds, and the management and use of the resultant financial resources, precisely because the Government would have nothing to hide.

In this context, the Government would obviously have to put in place very strict measures to combat any corruption that might arise, related to the diamond industry.

I have said all this because I have no doubt that there will be people both from Zimbabwe and elsewhere in the world who will see the opportunity of the exploitation of Zimbabwe’s diamond resources as, for them, a happy occasion for self-enrichment by corrupt means.

In all humility, I would also say that the Government of Zimbabwe must put in place a progressive and long-term policy about the management of this important natural resource heritage, as it has done with regard to land, in this case relating to this country’s diamonds.

This must mean sustained national access to the financial revenues deriving from the exploitation of this resource, and the use of these revenues to finance the necessary sustainable development, bearing in mind that what is mined, including diamonds, is not a renewable resource.

I know that Zimbabwe, like much of our region, is rich in natural resources, in addition to the land and the diamond resources we have spoken of this evening.

I have absolutely no doubt that Zimbabwe will evolve into one of the African Lions of which other objective observers have spoken, which will ensure that the people of this country achieve the objective we all seek of achieving the objective of a sustained and comprehensive better life.

Of critical importance in this context, will be how you, our Zimbabwe friends, present here today, handle your management of your natural resources, including land, diamonds, platinum, chrome, copper, coal, gold, and others of this country’s many natural resources.

For many years now, our region, through SADC, has called for the lifting of sanctions against Zimbabwe, which regrettably has not happened.

Our region made this call not to advantage the ruling party in Zimbabwe, but to improve the socio-economic situation in Zimbabwe, in favour of the people as a whole.

We acted as we did as the people in place who had intimate knowledge of the situation in our countries and our neighbourhood. In this regard we were very happy that earlier this year, the UN Commissioner for Human Rights, Judge Navi Pillay, also called for the lifting of these sanctions.

The public position which many took relating to what UN Commissioner Navi Pillay said about Zimbabwe confirmed to us as Africans, to our regret, that the issue of human rights in international politics, certainly as it relates to us, is little more than an instrument in a global political struggle weighted to undermine the assertion of our right to self determination.

In this regard, as I did in Dubai last year, I would appeal to you as members of the Kimberley Process, not to allow the important Kimberley Process, in whose success our Continent is genuinely interested, to be abused by anybody whatsoever, for political purposes, among others to achieve the objective of ‘regime change’ in Zimbabwe.

In this regard I have no doubt that Africa, as a major producer and exporter of diamonds, will participate actively and willingly in any process to improve the functioning and other elements of the Kimberley Process, as I have said.

However, Africa and Southern Africa as a whole share the hope for the speedy economic and political recovery of Zimbabwe.

Together, as a billion Africans, we believe that the Zimbabwe diamonds will help to achieve these important objectives which would benefit our Continent as whole.

Both the Zimbabwe political leadership and the world political powers owe a sacred obligation to the peoples of Zimbabwe and Africa to ensure that this country’s diamonds serve as the people’s best friend!

I sincerely hope that all of us gathered here at this World Heritage Site, Musi oa Thunya, will take the decisions we must, which will enable the peoples of Zimbabwe and Africa to acquire the benefit of the heritage of a better life, and thus defeat all ill-intentioned attempts to inject into the Kimberley Process objectives inimical to its original and noble purposes.

As Africans we can have no objection to the goal that Africa must succeed.

As these Africans, including as Zimbabweans, we cannot have any other objective than that Zimbabwe re-establishes herself as one of Africa’s preeminent pioneer counties.

You, Zimbabweans who are with us today, have an obligation to live up to this task, and therefore to honour what Africa has done to help guarantee your own right to self- determination, in Africa’s own interest.

Whatever your faults which as Africans we share with you, nevertheless we demand of you that you must, at all times, act in a manner that upholds and demonstrates our character as true and noble Africans.

Thank you.

To help maintain editorial independence Nehanda Radio relies on donations from readers like you. No donation is too small or too big. Help by donating to fund our operations.

THE Consumer Unity Trust Society (CUTS) says it is saddened by Government’s failure to include the windfall tax on minerals in the 2013 national Budget.
CUTS programmes officer Tommy Singongi said Zambia could have benefitted greatly had windfall tax been re-introduced.

He said the country had lost another opportunity to get benefits from minerals because of Government’s failure to re-introduce windfall tax.
Mr Singongi said the civil society in Zambia expected the windfall tax to be included in the 2013 Budget.

“The country has lost another opportunity to get benefits from the country’s endowments.

“Introducing windfall tax is the only way the Government can get revenue instead of ordinary citizens subsidising the mines,” Mr Singongi said.

The Government scrapped off the 25 per cent windfall tax in 2009 following complaints from mine owners in the country that it raised production costs and discouraged investment.

But Mr Singongi said copper and other minerals were wasting assets, hence the reason for demanding for more revenue from it which the Government could plough into the economy.

The civil society organisations (CSO) in the country had earlier this year proposed to the Government the re-introduction of windfall tax for mining companies in the 2013 Budget.

The CSOs argued that there was need for equitable benefits from “super normal” profits enjoyed by the mining companies during periods of high copper and cobalt prices.

This was contained in joint submissions on tax and non-tax proposals for the 2013 national Budget to the Ministry of Finance.

Mr Singongi, however, said all hope was not lost because the Government could still re-negotiate with the mine owners in the country the windfall tax.

Friday, November 16, 2012

COMMENT - The writer is just regurgitating the claims made by Partnership Africa Canada. He has not proven the veracity of the claim that $2 billion worth of diamonds were 'stolen' or have benefited President Mugabe and his inner circle. This 'raises more questions than answers' is just spin.

Delegates spoke of the amazing potential Zimbabwe has as a diamond producer. Zimbabwe allegedly has the capacity to produce between 110 million to 160 million carats of diamonds annually, making it one of the top five diamond producers by volume in the world.

But where the diamond money is going is not clear. The Mugabe government seemed unconcerned about providing clarity on how much is mined or earned at the country’s eastern Marange diamond fields. Mines Minister Obert Mpofu dismissed calls for transparency.
“How then are you expected to be transparent when there are hyenas chasing you?” said Mpofu to conference delegates, referring to diamond watchdog groups. “They want to know what car you drive, which house you are living in and what plane you are flying.”

Mpofu was named as having amassed “unexplained wealth” from illegal diamond deals, in a report released at the start of the conference by a Canadian group campaigning against conflict diamonds, Partnership Africa Canada. The report described Mpofu as “the chief guardian of Marange” because of his role in awarding “opaque” concessions beyond the scrutiny of government ministers and the public.

Mpofu denied the accusations and dismissed the report as being funded by the Canadian government to “vilify and lie” about Zimbabwe.

“You think Africans can believe that nonsense? We are very emotional about it and we have suffered enough,” Mpofu said.

At least $2 billion from diamond sales was allegedly stolen from the Marange diamond fields and enriched President Robert Mugabe’s ZANU-PF party loyalists and military hierarchy, the report said.

[Alleged by Partnership Africa Canada on the eve of the conference, but not proven by them. - MrK]

The funds from diamond sales could have turned around the country’s embattled economy, but they have not shown up in the national coffers.

[That's what they claimed, again without providing proof. - MrK]

After years of political and economic meltdown, Zimbabwe’s health and education services remain broke.

Finance Minister Biti said in his budget speech he had been promised $600 million from diamond sales but the head of state-run Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation, Goodwills Masimirembwa said that figure had to be revised downwards to $150 million due to poor performance of diamond sales affected by Western sanctions.

While Zimbabwe’s entire budget for education for 2012 was $8 million, Mugabe’s party is constructing a $6 million conference hall in the provincial city of Gweru for its annual convention in December.

[How odd, considering he himself is a minister in the coalition government. Perhaps he himself is spending too much too? Is he bringing this up in cabinet meetings? - MrK]

Coltart said last week that the number of children dropping out of school has risen by 10 percent because of increased school fees. Coltart said his ministry must rely on the goodwill of donors to assist in its programs.

He accused Mugabe’s party of having misplaced priorities.

“We have a warped system in Zimbabwe, a history of misplaced priorities; this hall in Gweru and the military college constructed for $100 million,” Coltart said.

“If that money had been channeled toward the rehabilitation of schools, then we would have improved the learning institutions.”

Zimbabwe received a $98 million loan from China to build a sprawling military training college. China wants the loan repaid over 13 years from proceeds from the Marange diamond fields.

However, the Mugabe government complains that sanctions by Europe, Australia and the U.S. are “denying the people of Zimbabwe a chance to benefit from diamond sales.”

[Selling the country's diamonds on the open market. - MrK]

Former South African President Thabo Mbeki told Zimbabwe that it must ensure the “greatest possible transparency” in the mining and sales of its diamonds and guard the diamond industry against “a predatory elite which uses its access to state power to enrich itself, against the interests of the people as a whole, acting in collusion with the mining companies.”

Mbeki said the country’s political leadership “owes a sacred obligation to the peoples of Zimbabwe to ensure that the country’s diamonds serve as the people’s best friend.”

Press Release: Following the conclusion of a successful Zimbabwe Diamond Conference 2012, Ahmed Bin Sulayim, the executive chairman of the Dubai Multi Commodities Centre (DMCC), expressed his gratitude and admiration to the conference organizers for a meaningful and significant event that yielded tangible results.

"We congratulate the Zimbabwean Ministry of Mines and Development on a job well done and on the reaffirmation issued by the Kimberley Process Certification System chair that Zimbabwe is fully compliant. We sincerely hope this will lead to a continuous increase of supply of Zimbabwean rough diamonds into the industry pipeline," Bin Sulayim said.
The DMCC chairman also vowed that it would fully support the efforts to be undertaken by Eli Izhakoff, the president of the World Diamond Council, to engage the United States Treasury and the European community to lift sanctions on diamonds from Zimbabwe.

"I am convinced that for many of the functionaries, industry leaders, other delegates and visitors, this visit to Zimbabwe was an eye opener. The openness and the unprecedented high level of the [panel] discussions created an electrifying atmosphere where all issues were on the table, examined and discussed. I certainly hope these types of value adding meetings will be held in the future as well," he noted

*Pictured: Part of the head table of the Zimbabwe Diamond Conference 2012. From left: Ahmed Bin Sulayim, executive chairman of the DMCC; Thabo Mbeki, former minister of South Africa; and Robert Mugabe, president of Zimbabwe.

Rapaport News is not responsible for, and does not endorse, the content of any third party press release. This is not a Rapaport Press Release. It has been provided as additional information for our clients.

ZANU PF’S new rules on primary elections are designed to protect the party from “nefarious machinations of opportunists” and will not be used to “target any comrades”, politburo member and Tsholotsho North MP Jonathan Moyo said on Friday.

Rugare Gumbo, the Zanu PF spokesman, said a committee chaired by Didymus Mutasa which drew up the rules for the party’s internal elections to choose parliamentary candidates will table its proposals during the politburo next week.
The NewsDay newspaper claims Mutasa will recommend that individuals seeking to run for MP “must have served the party for no less than five consecutive years”.

The newspaper immediately speculated that Moyo, who left the party in 2005 and rejoined in 2009, would not be eligible because it is only three years since his readmission.

Other individuals who could be affected, the newspaper said, would be July Moyo, Phillip Chiyangwa, Daniel Shumba and Mike Madiro who were all suspended at some point over the last five years.

But according to the ZBC, “every card-carrying member who has served the party for five or more years is eligible to stand”. All the officials named by NewsDay would be free to contest under that criterion.

Moyo, responding to a NewsDay report on Friday claiming that he had said the party would “bend rules to allow him to stand”, said: “The five-year rule has absolutely and totally nothing to do with me personally and it therefore does not affect me in any way, shape or form in personal terms.

“This is because I have been in Zanu PF for all of my life and in case you don't know I am not five years old. The fact that I have been Zanu PF and defended the party as a liberation movement for my entire life is written in my mind, heart and blood and not in rubbish newspapers run by some cockeyed yellow journalists.”

Moyo said the rule was “intended to safeguard the party by protecting it from the nefarious machinations of opportunists, infiltrators, merchants and agents of regime change and other malcontents in our midst who are wont to use the pretext of elections to derail, demoralise, destabilise or destroy the party."

He added: "The rule is therefore not targeted at any comrades, particularly the so-called Young Turks, most if not all of whom are in the ranks of the youth, professionals or national security structures and may not have been politically active or visible due to their peculiar circumstances.

“Surely the situation of such comrades warrants exemptions from the rule by opening rather than shutting the electoral door to them? It is for this reason that serious minded and mature people, especially within leadership ranks, are always open to exceptions that prove the rule without getting carried away by the dogmas that proclaim the rule.”

Chiyangwa, who is eyeing his old Chinhoyi constituency, said NewsDay had “failed to interpret the [Zanu PF] statement”.

“I have served the party for many years. The rule did not say five consecutive years.”

COMMENT - Take away the possibility of national resources being owned by transnational mining corporations and their trillionaire banking dynasty shareholders, and devolution is a good idea, because it increases democracy. However, the reason the MDC is in favour of devolution is because it weakens the state, making it easier for Anglo-American Corporation to make a deal with a seceded Matabeleland, the way Glencore Internatioal PLC now owns 49% of the oil of South Sudan.

POLICE chief Augustine Chihuri has waded into a political row over devolution, claiming Zimbabweans would cease “being one” if the new system of government is adopted.

A new draft constitution is stalled as President Robert Mugabe’s Zanu PF party fights the inclusion of several clauses, including devolution.
Chihuri said all those calling for devolution – including the two MDC factions – were unpatriotic, according to comments attributed to him by the NewsDay newspaper.

“We know that there are foreign elements that are trying to infiltrate our country,” Chihuri is reported as telling the Senior Officers’ Conference in Ruwa on Thursday.

“I urge you to throw away this notion of devolution that is coming from some quarters in this country. Devolution means division. What are we devolving for? What is the problem of being one?”

President Mugabe and several senior officials from his Zanu PF party – among them Ignatius Chombo, Webster Shamu and Jonathan Moyo – have all publicly voiced their opposition to devolution, but the MDC parties insist Zimbabweans want it in the new constitution.
Chihuri told senior officers to do all they could to ensure devolution did not see the light of day.

“I urge you to refuse that,” he said. “If I had the privilege of continuing being the Commissioner General, I will not preside over any division of this nature, never!”

Chihuri has previously drawn criticism from the MDC parties for allegedly dabbling in Zanu PF politics.

COMMENT - Great, fewer small banks, more large banks. Making Zimbabwe ready for rule by transnational corporations and their transnational banks.

Biti vows new banking crackdown
15/11/2012 00:00:00
by Business Reporter

FINANCE Minister Tendai Biti has vowed to tighten banking regulation and further increase minimum capital requirements, accusing the sector of ripping off customers through extortionate service charges while refusing to back economic recovery efforts.

Presenting his 2013 national budget to Parliament Thursday, Biti said new measure would be taken to address what he described as virtual monopolies in the country’s banking sector.
“What we have in the banking sector is not what we envisaged we have four banks controlling 80% of the deposits,” he said.

“In the past we refrained from regulating the sector, but we have seen monopolies, and this leads to market failure and because of this we are moving in to regulate the sector starting with the upwards revision of bank capitalisation, also the repatriation of 70% held by banks in the Nostro accounts as well as amend the Banking Act where we would want to know the actual shareholders.”

The measures appear to be pay-back time for the banks Biti, together with central bank chief, Gideon Gono failed to sell treasury bills to foreign banks in recent months.

Three offers of the bills worth US$30 million collapsed after the banks offered interest rates unacceptable to the government.

“There’s a lack of strategic thinking by foreign-owned banks operating in Zimbabwe,” Biti said. “I am extremely mortified and mystified by them. We are now moving in to regulate the sector.”
“We have had misadventures on the issue of treasury bills and we are now taking major measures to resolve this,” said Biti.

“The Bankers’ Association of Zimbabwe and the central bank will have to sit down and agree on the manner on which the lending rate is defined.”
Biti said four banks hold 80 percent of all deposits in Zimbabwe. He didn’t name the banks.

However, Gono singled Barclays and Standard Chartered early this month as warned that “extraordinary measures” would be taken to ensure the sector supports government attempts to raise millions of dollars to support the economy.

“Let me express the central bank and the government’s disappointment as well over the behaviour of the banks, especially the foreign-owned institutions towards the issuance of the Treasury bills,” Gono said in Harare at the launch of the Banks Survey.

“All the issues have met with some level of resistance. We had hoped with the take-up we would smoothe the operations of the sector by bringing about additional liquidity on the market. But some banks, particularly the foreign-owned banks, have not played ball.

“The long and short story of it is that just like an eye for an eye leaves the world blind, a snub begets a snub. We as the RBZ Board and as monetary authorities and as Treasury tried to use moral suasion but none of these apparatus have worked.

“Extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary measures. We will be introducing a battery of measures that will ensure compliance.”

FINANCE Minister Tendai Biti has said the economy would grow by 5% next year but warned that the prospects could be scuttled if elections planned for March turned violent.

Presenting what would likely be his last budget statement to Parliament Thursday Biti said: “Growth in 2013 will be 5 percent and this is a disaster. We’re killing a rat, but eating an elephant.”
And in the spirit of “eating an elephant”, Biti offered the country’s working but struggling majority a US$1,000 tax free bonus adding that teachers would also be exempted from ZIMRA taxes.

“The non-taxable bonus is now up to US$1000 (but) Caesar will not be getting what belongs to him in this regard,” he said.

Attention will however, be focused on the continued increase in recurrent expenditure, in particular the government’s ballooning wage bill.

Some 73 percent of the US$3.8 billion revenues expected in 2013 would be taken up by salaries for state employees who have already rejected Biti’s proposal for an inflation-linked adjustment.

“We are running a feja feja economy Mr Speaker Sir,” the Treasury chief said referring to a projected US$260 million deficit.

“Already factoring in salaries for the civil servants which amount to US$2,6 billion and if you subtract from our project revenue of US$3,6 million you will be left with something around US$700 million to go towards line ministry operations.

“The US$700 million is equal to what we have already spent before we bring in extra challenges such as the referendum and the election to be held next year. Kuchave nekugeda geda kwe meno.”

Biti however, warned that a repeat of the violent presidential run-off election of 2008 would "collapse the nascent foundation we have built over the last three years."

Zimbabwe is expected to hold elections sometime next year to choose a successor to the country's shaky power-sharing government formed by President Robert Mugabe and long-time rival Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai.

Biti did not say how much he was setting aside for elections but insisted he would find the cash to finance the polls and a constitutional referendum next year.

"You can’t have peace unless you pay for it,” he said. “We will have to fund a referendum and an election. Those elections must be free of violence. Violence is a major threat to the economy.”

Zimbabwe is also spending 8.6 percent of GDP on imports, a situation Biti said needs to be addressed: “ “For every $1 coming into the country $3 is going out.

"Our imports averaged over US$7 billion whilst our exports only averaged US$4,9 billion representing 8% of our GDP going to imports. This isn’t sustainable and we have to deal with the supply-side of the economy.”

The country’s economy is showing signs of recovery but most companies are still operating below capacity hamstrung by unstable electricity supplies, lack of funds and high labour costs while others have pulled down the shutters or relocated to neighbouring countries.

Much anticipated foreign investment has not been forthcoming with potential investors seeking reassurance over a law which compels foreign companies to sell their majority stake to locals.

Fackson Shamenda, the Minister of Labour and a former trade union leader, acknowledges the violations of the rights and interests of workers and retirees. And he has attributed this to "a lot of factors".

Fackson says the government has identified issues of concern regarding the country's labour laws and has pointed out a number of reforms that the government is undertaking or is planning to undertake relating "to declining and poor conditions of service for many Zambian workers, widespread casualisation of labour, unsafe workplaces, unrealistic and inadequate retirement packages which are often not in harmony with the cost of living and failure to pay pensioners and retirees their benefits on time".
Fackson has promised that the government is undertaking "a comprehensive review and amendment of current labour-related legislation; rationalise the administration of the ministry to effectively carry out its inspectorate function so as to promote the welfare of workers in workplaces; domesticate and implement international labour standards that Zambia is a signatory to".
But the government, as an employer and the largest employer in the country for that matter, is one of the leading violators of the rights and interests of workers, pensioners and retirees.

But while we welcome the good pronouncements being made by our Minister of Labour, we feel there is need to remind the government that it cannot call other employers to virtues, to respecting the rights and interests of workers, pensioners and retirees which it does not itself make an effort to respect, to observe, to practice and promote.

The government has to show leadership in the struggle to improve the conditions of workers and the respect of workers, pensioners and retirees' rights and interests. The government is doing very badly in terms of paying pensioners and retirees their dues. Politicians get their gratuities even before their term of office is over. Parliamentarians are always getting paid their mid-term gratuities. And before Parliament dissolves, all their dues are paid to them.

And all other politicians get their dues and other benefits long before their terms of office come to an end. But this is not so with the workers. There are many government workers who have been waiting to get their retirement benefits for many years and some have died long before getting paid. It seems the political leadership of this country thinks of itself first and the people they are elected to serve thereafter or as an after-thought.

It seems payments to the political leadership of this country take precedence over payments to government workers.
This being the case, how can government effectively and efficiently lead the struggle for the improvement of workers' conditions?

We ask our leaders to be exemplary in their daily lives. And the appeal for fair and just treatment of workers should be heard in government. Justice begins at home, and the government itself, together with the political leadership of this country, must be the first to give witness.

Employees have a strict duty to give their employers efficient and conscientious work for which they have a right to a just salary or wage. Work provides an opportunity for each of us to show that we are images of God. Why is this so? This is so because God is Creator and we, every woman and man, show forth God's image when we continue creation through our work, our labour, our engagement in shaping the future of our country. The dignity of work must be recognised with just wages and safe conditions.

Every employer should ask himself or herself the question: do I pay proper wages? And every employee should equally ask himself or herself the question: do I work conscientiously? Every citizen of this country should ask himself or herself the question: do I promote just employment policies?

Every employer, including the government, should give employees an honest salary or wage and then ask them for more substantial support.
We should condemn all forms of employment that place profit before persons and are based on the exploitation of one by another.

Of course, we cannot pretend that everything is as it should be in our country. There are times of great difficulties which often demand austerity measures to be put in place. But the austerity required in such times needs to be equally shared among all.

The rights of workers, like all rights, are based on the nature of the human person and on his or her transcendent dignity. Among these rights are: a just wage; a working environment not harmful to the workers' physical health or their moral integrity; social security, and the right to assemble and form associations. And therefore, trade unions which enable workers to improve their conditions should be valued and promoted by everybody in society.

We are reminded in Matt 20:4: "Go to my vineyard and I will give you a fair wage." Remuneration for work should guarantee people a dignified livelihood for themselves and their families.

Government should therefore regulate industries and commerce to protect workers' rights and to curb exploitation. By means of work and making use of intelligence, people should be able to make the earth a fitting home - "... come to me, all you who labour and are over-burdened, I will give you rest" (Matt 11:28).

A society's wellbeing depends on efforts to ensure that no member feels excluded from the mainstream of society. This requires that all groups, but particularly the most vulnerable, have opportunities to improve their lives. Access to dignified employment is one sure way of ensuring the inclusion of everyone in the life of society. Zambia has been enjoying economic growth but the poverty levels have not adequately reduced as a result. The creation of dignified employment is crucial to ensuring the reduction of poverty in the face of economic growth.

By means of work and making use of the gift of intelligence, people are able to exercise dominion over the earth and make it a fitting home - "your work will provide for your needs; you will be happy and prosperous" (Ps 128:2).

Clearly, work is at the centre of the social question, the key to making life more humane. And it is pleasing to see the government increasingly taking a pro-worker stance and committing itself to justice for workers and wanting to be a government of the poor.

People have the right to the fruits of their labour, but should use them to benefit all - "work with your hands and be dependent on nobody as we charged you" (1Thess 4:11).

We are all called to use our talents through our work in order to build up the good of our society. The effect of having no quality jobs, high unemployment is degrading and making quality work available is most important. And each worker is called to learn their trade well and practice it with care; the sanctification of work consists in this.

But we should always bear in mind that people's work concerns not only the economy but also, and especially, personal values. Work is rooted in respect for human dignity. It is done by a collection of individuals who have chosen to come together and to unite their minds, wills and hearts for the common good. And as such, every effort should be made that the enterprise becomes a community of persons.

If our country is to move forward, honest and hard work is demanded of all of us - "by the sweat of our face, you shall eat bread" (Gen 3:19).
Clearly, the priority of work over capital places an obligation in justice upon employers to consider the welfare of their workers before the increase of profits.

The socioeconomic problems that occur today cannot be solved unless new fronts of solidarity are created: solidarity of the poor among themselves, solidarity with the poor to which the rich are called, solidarity among the workers, and with the workers. Institutions and social organisations at different levels, as well as the state, must share in a general movement of solidarity.

There will be opposition from capital to these initiatives that the government is taking to protect the rights of workers and improve their conditions. But what needs to be done should be done in spite of the opposition that may be faced. The economy should be for the benefit of all the people.

PROFESSOR Clive Chirwa says his love for Zambia and patriotism have compelled him to come and help rebuild Zambia Railways. President Michael Sata yesterday announced the appointment of Prof Chirwa as chief executive officer of Zambia Railways.

"It gives me an opportunity now to offer my services to my country in a tangible manner whereby a product will be produced at the end of the day," he said in an interview.
"I'm sacrificing quite a lot to come back to my country and this is my patriotism which I want to show in order to build this thing up to the end. You can understand that I'm losing a lot in terms of overall revenue and in terms of my style of life, to come back and help my country."

Asked what vision he had for the company, Prof Chirwa responded: "We will From front page reconstruct the whole Zambia Railways from scratch because there's nothing there left. So, it's something which we are starting from ground stage to very highly technological railway which you're going to see in three years' time."

Asked if he would persuade other Zambians in the Diaspora to emulate his patriotism, Prof Chirwa answered in the affirmative.

"I'm going on what you call a recruitment spree in the Diaspora to actually bring some of the Zambians who are highly technologically advanced; not only in engineering but in all the fields, to come and help rebuild Zambia. We are going to create job opportunities," said Prof Chirwa.

"In the next three months, we'll start the recruitment, perhaps the biggest in Zambia, to start rebuilding the railway infrastructure which we have completely lost. I would like to say to the nation, 'thank you for bringing back your son'. And I would like to thank His Excellency the President for this opportunity to ring me and offer me this job. He has seen in me someone who can change the railway system in the country. On that account, I wish him well so that he can see what we can produce out of the railway system."

According to a statement released yesterday by President Sata's special assistant for press and public relations George Chellah, Prof Chirwa's five-year appointment is with immediate effect.

Prof Chirwa replaces Knox Karima, who has been retired in national interest.

"I have deemed it appropriate and opportune to appoint you Chief Executive Officer of Zambia Railways Limited. Your appointment is with immediate effect for a period of five (5) years," stated President Sata.

"Millions of tonnes of both our imports and exports which should have been transported by rail were diverted to road transport, in the process exerting a very severe toll on our roads. The cost to the economy has been and is unsustainable,"

"Government has taken a positive move in this direction by allocating K640 billion for the rehabilitation of the rail line," stated President Sata.

Meanwhile, the head of state has given Karima a one-month notice in which to facilitate a smooth hand-over to the incoming chief executive officer.

Prof Chirwa is a lecturer at Bolton University in the UK and distinguished Professor of Automotive and Aerospace Structures and chairman of Automotive and Aerospace Engineering.

He is also editor-in-chief of The International Journal of Crashworthiness and adviser to UK, Australia, USA, EU, Japan, Canada and Singapore governments on trans-safety, among many other internationally recognised credentials and achievements.

"Some even believe we are (...) conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." David Rockefeller, Memoirs